Rating: 
Summary: A Return to the Dark Ages...
Review: Hannity and Ashcroft are pretty much mid-evil types. Can't burn witches anymore - that's too politically incorrect (though Ashcroft is working on it). What's a mid-evil type guy to do?Hey, next best thing! An inquisition! Yeah! That's the ticket! Commies, terrorists, liberals... Nothing like a good old fashion inquisition. Saddam has some old torture devices up on eBay, cheap! No reserve. What sad times are these. Minstrel, grab you veille and play me a merry tune.
Rating:
Summary: Deliver us from Hannity...
Review: This book, after borrowing it from my Library and reading it cover to cover is one of themost crooked, slanted, and biased books I have ever read. Hannity is nothing ut a business man, trying to bank on this book by distorting truths, flat out lying, and writing things that are just plain not true at all. If I were a betting man, i would say that Hannity gets some kickback from the Republicans to continuously push their lies via his books and radio shows. Becuase if this man is really this delusional, then he needs help! Bad bad bad book. If you want lies, propoganda, then its a funny read. If you want the truth, look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: Hannity's Tome a Mixed-Bag
Review: Book's not bad. It has it's moments. A few zingers. But let me be honest: I don't like this guy much. His absurd haircut. His irritating voice. His college drop-out education (he shares that status with a lot of GOP talking heads -- among them, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove). But if you can ignore that -- this book ISNT HALF BAD. Hannity makes his case pretty well -- or the Wall Street journal hack who wrote this for him makes Hannity's case pretty well. Here's H's view of the world: 1. There are good people. Me and people who listen to me.
2. There are people who do not listen to me. We call them "bad people" (aka "liberals")
3. There are people who have some intelligence and the capacity to think sophisticated thoughts that cannot be printed on a bumper sticker or in a big print book appropriate for the supermarket checkout lane -- since these people almost never fall into category #1 -- they are also, by default, bad people. (aka "liberals")
4. There are people who are actually bad. Murderers. Dictators. Etc. (aka "evil doers") In H's world, everybody who is not listening to him is under suspicion of belonging to group #4. I like his proposal to melt down the Statue of Liberty as an anti-french gesture and a way to raise money for the war on terror. Other than that, he has some witty somments about Hillary Clinton and her thighs. He calls her Senator Jumbo at times. Not a bad afternoon read.
Rating:
Summary: The guy's an idiot...
Review: ...period. And none too bright. Nary an original thought enters this man's head.
People who buy this stuff are being laughed at by the robots who write this stuff. AND THEY ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK. Get with it folks! Think for yourselves!
Rating: 
Summary: Truth
Review: If any of you people out there want to read the truth read this book. Mr Hannity makes his case by and has the sources to back them up. The poor folks who have bashed this book havent read it. You will be shocked at what you find out. Thank You Sean!
Rating:
Summary: What a blow to modern thinking
Review: I can tell from some of the other reveiws you librals dont like this book. I think Sean lays it down like it is concerning terrorism, liberalism and so forth. Not a book for the weak bleeding heart liberal. I agreed with him on everything he wrote in this book. If you are a God fearing,patriotic,conservative minded American with some sense of what is truely right and wrong then read this book. He puts things like they really are and not like the libral media and politians would have us believe and think. I enjoyed every page from front to back.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, gimme a break.
Review: I haven't read this book. I might, in the future. If I do, I fully intend to give it fair treatment, and not fall prey to "knee-jerk liberalism." However, in the meantime I feel compelled to give it a 1-star rating for perhaps the worst book title in history. I mean, "Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism"?! Does this guy even know the definition of these three words? In other words, Hannity's writing a manual on, um, "Defeating oppression and freedom"? Good job! P.S. For the skeptics, here are the definitions of "terrorism, ""despotism" and "liberalism" from dictionary.com. des·pot·ism P Pronunciation Key (dsp-tzm)
n. Rule by or as if by a despot; absolute power or authority.
The actions of a despot; tyranny.
A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute power: "Kerensky has a place in history, of a brief interlude between despotisms" (William Safire).
A state so ruled. ter·ror·ism P Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. ib·er·al·ism P Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n. The state or quality of being liberal.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Rating:
Summary: Poor Liberals
Review: It must be tough to be a Democrat these days... REPUBLICANS CONTROL:
The White House
The United States House of Representatives
The United States Senate
The Supreme Court
The majority of governorships (now including Ca-leee-fornia)
The majority of state houses
The majority of state senates DEMOCRATS CONTROL:
ABC
CBS
CNN
MSNBC
NBC (And still they can't win an election!)
Rating: 
Summary: Hopeless Idealogue
Review: Hannity is a far right idealogue. Period. He's consistent, never strays from the party line. It amazes me that folkes can take his rants as gospel truth without skepticism - but then again people flocked to circus tents to be cured by phoney faith healers. And, if you want to believe you will, despite any and all evidence to the contrary - like children who believe in Santa Clause. There's problems a-plenty with this book. Read the Publisher's Weekly review posted here... 1. Circular Logic: like not finding WMDs in Iraq is proof that there are WMDs in Iraq. 2. Irrefutable evidence is highly refutable... A. Hannnity's account of Neville Chaimberlain's appeasement policy is a very dated history. Currently, WWI scholars generally agree that appeasement was a stall tactic to allow Britain time to re-arm. Chamberlain was feverishly working to re-arm Britain on the one hand, while he "appeased" Hitler to buy time on the other.
->Common knowledge, but not mentioned in Hanity's book. B. Nixon and Eisenhower respectively ended the Vietnam and Korean wars - two head to head battles with communism, both truncated by Republican administrations. C. No mention of the Iran-Contra scandal under the Reagan administration, where weapons were traded with terrorists to free Ameriacan hostages in Iran.
-> To exclude this renders Hannity's book a joke. It just does. Buy it and revel in it if you're "Hannitized" to anyone else who is historically or politically aware, it might be good for a laugh. Suggestion... if you're "Hannitized" see your nearest faith healer, perhaps s/he can cure you.
Rating:
Summary: Hannity Conclusively Proves that the Nazis were Evil! Wow!
Review: This book tries to be profound and falls way, way short. According to Hannity, there is "Evil" in the world and he can prove it! Worse yet, "liberals" always answer threats from evil despots with appeasement. Hannity's first example is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his infamous appeasement of Adolf Hitler over the Sudetenland. Never mind the fact that 1.) Chamberlain was a member of the CONSERVATIVE Party, 2.) that this was in Britain and out of the Democrats' jurisdiction, 3.) that in the U.S. the Republicans were isolationists who clamored to stay out of Europe's war up until Pearl Harbor was bombed, 4.) that the U.S. president at the time was a liberal Democrat (FDR) who would be farsighted enough to start helping the UK as well as building up the "arsenal of democracy" in anticipation of an inevitable showdown with the Axis powers. No, never mind all that. Somehow that was supposed to be a set-up for taking on the Dems later in the book. Next, Hannity takes on Communism and pretty much credits Ronald Reagan with single-handedly defeating it. To prove it, he quotes books written by Reagan's most ardent fans (Ed Meese, Jeane Kirkpatrick, et al) as well as Reagan himself. Very balanced. Probably the most glaring example of ignorance was Hannity's analysis on Iran. Throughout the book, anytime he wants to prove just how evil a regime is, he mentions how their secret police use rape, torture and murder as methods of suppression. In the case of Iraq, it was Hannity's biggest reason why the U.S. invasion was still okay despite not finding any WMD's. While the current Iranian regime's use of rape, torture and murder is condemned by Hannity as grounds for toppling it, he conveniently forgets to mention that the previous regime under the Shah had a secret police force, SAVAK, which also used rape, torture and murder as methods of suppression. But Hannity needed to attack Jimmy Carter for allowing the Shah's demise, so he simply says that the Shah "wasn't a perfect ruler" and that "[i]n his attempts to rush his ancient Persian society into the modern world, he led an often oppressive regime." Why does he need to attack Carter for the Shah's demise? Well, because the rise of the radical theocracy in Iran forced, yes forced the hand of Ronald Reagan to begin giving aid to Saddam (wasn't some of that aid in the form of dual-use chemical components?). I suppose if it hadn't been for Carter's weakness, Reagan wouldn't have been forced to sell weapons to the Iranians in an attempt to get hostages released either (isn't that appeasement?). Yep, Reagan is blameless. It's all Carter. And Clinton, of course. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that has ever gone wrong in our foreign policy, was the fault of the liberal Democrats, at least according to this book. If only life were this simple.
| 
